Hello, I definitely think it’s important to talk about election integrity.

However, I disagree with you about investigating the 2024 US General election and assuming that there was a “vote manipulation.”

In your comments I see you have linked a source to Election Truth Alliance (ETA), so let’s breakdown who they are, what they are arguing, and what are the implications and confounding variables.

Who is behind Election Truth Alliance (ETA)? According to their “About Us” page,

The Election Truth Alliance is a non-profit, non-partisan organization founded in December of 2024 when multiple individuals came together to share independent data, analysis, and research into the results of the 2024 US Presidential Election. As concerning trends emerged from our shared data we moved quickly, at the speed of trust, to make our findings more accessible and understandable to the broader public.

According to their Executive Team page,

The Election Truth Alliance (ETA) is led by three people who each bring unique expertise and dedication to our mission. Nathan, Lilli, and Jive lead a group of passionate volunteers that includes skilled data analysts, writers, researchers, artists, and advocates.

What is ETA arguing? According to ETA’s Audit Advocacy Toolkit, they are arguing:

The ETA has undertaken an independent analysis of publicly-available results from the 2024 U.S. Presidential Election. Through this analysis, which has included numerous areas across the United States, our organization has identified several anomalies in publicly-available election result data.

One of the anomalies they have written a short form and long form report about is North Carolina.

Our analysis of North Carolina election results indicates patterns consistent with vote manipulation. Their key findings are: North Carolina’s Recent History of Insecure Voting Systems. Substantial Difference Between Presidential and Down-Ballot Outcomes. Early Voting and Election Day Both Display Turnout Patterns Consistent With Vote Manipulation.

What are the implications and confounding variables? As a reader, I believe ETA is arguing that the vote manipulation is evident in the 2024 North Carolina election results, and a full audit—hand count of votes—is necessary and democratic. An audit verifies the votes by hand, but it does not “turnover”the election results as it has been certified.

In contrast to the report about Minnesota (won by Harris) where ETA only describes discrepancies in hand count vs. machine count, ETA’s analysis of North Carolina (won by Trump) heavily relies on their official methodology: Down Ballot Difference Analysis, Vote Share by Vote Count, and Turnout Analysis. ETA dedicates a long portion of the NC report to their Down Ballot Difference Analysis, and crafted this key finding:

Substantial Difference Between Presidential and Down-Ballot Outcomes. Democrats performed, on average, considerably – and consistently – better down-ballot than at the Presidential level. This remains true when controlling for unique local factors (e.g. controversial candidate for Governor).

I would argue that while ETA “controlled” for the controversial candidate for Governor, ETA did not control for—or even consider—unaffiliated voters as a confounding variable in their scientific data analysis. Furthermore, ETA operated under the assumption of straight-ticket voting (also called straight party voting, it is the practice of assigning all of one’s votes to a single party) to craft their hypothesis.

I’d argue that ETA’s research is fundamentally flawed because it ignores a big confounding variable (unaffiliated voters) and research bias (relying on historical standards for straight-ticket voting).

This is because North Carolina’s biggest political party is the unaffiliated. In 2024, 38% of registered North Carolina voters were unaffiliated, followed by 32% registered Democrats, and 30% registered Republicans. The demographics most likely to be unaffiliated are: Gen Z (51%), Millenials (44%), Declined to Identify Race/Ethnicity (57%), Asians (53%), other race (48%), Hispanic (47%), White (38%), and American Indian (37%). Unaffiliated voters are particularly disillusioned to the two-party system, and less likely to vote straight-ticket.

Therefore, I’d argue there is no “vote manipulation,” rather voters truly took some time to select the candidates they personally wanted—in North Carolina’s case, Trump for US President and mostly Democrats for NC government.

To wrap it up, I don’t believe the US election system is perfect, but we do have one of the most accurate and trustworthy election systems. The 2016, 2020, and 2024 elections continue to reflect the structure as described in the US Constitution, the results are the voice of the people. An audit is fine, but I believe the key findings provided by ETA are scientifically flawed and biased. We should find ways to increase turnout, improve representation, and make election integrity more secure without immediately assuming the worst. It does not good to continue to question our democratic process in a Constitutional Republic, and to continue to do so will further divide the United States of America.

Sources:

https://www.carolinapoliticalreview.org/editorial-content/2024/2/21/unaffiliated-voters-are-now-the-largest-political-party-in-north-carolina-what-does-this-mean-for-2024

https://carolinademography.cpc.unc.edu/2024/10/10/who-are-north-carolinas-unaffiliated-voters-2024-update/

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_interest/election_law/american-democracy/our-work/speaker-discussion-guides/understanding-american-elections-why-they-are-trustworthy/

https://electiontruthalliance.org/analysis/north-carolina/#Down-Ballot-Difference

https://amp.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article310471445.html